Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
to most other people. CB: A key thing about the Party and party democracy (the "democratic" in democratic centralism) is that it be closely connected with the masses. You can't be democratic if you are not connected to the masses. The "democratic" in democratic centralism must be the extensive connections between the masses and its leaders in the Party. It's incoherent to you because you have an idea that practictioners of it have not been connected to the masses. If you don't get the emphasis on connection between the party and the masses, then you don't understand the "democratic" in democratic centralist theory. It's true that the measing of words is typically pretty arbitrary. So if you want to use the word "democratic" in that way, we're talking about two completely different things. (I was talking about democracy within the party, whereas you're talking about a party's relationship with the "masses.") ^^^ CB: I'm not sure in what sense you mean that the meaning of words is typically pretty arbitrary. "Democratic" usually means popular sovereignty as opposed to dictatorship. If "democracy" is confined to the petty democracy of the small minority of the population that is in the Party, then it is not worth much. The decisions of the Party must be based on the experience of the masses of the population as well as the theory of the leaders in the Party. And I don't agree that Communist Parties have completely failed at this process, though there have been failures. I wrote: I didn't say "politically unconcious." In fact, I put the word "spontaneity" in quotes for a reason, because "spontaneity" is a vague and confusing concept. Rather, what I was saying was that much of the opposition to the coup came _from below_ (based on the short- and long-term class and national interests of those participating) rather than being orchestrated by the Bolivarist or any other organization. CB: You assume the Party is "above" the masses. Most self-styled "democratic centralist" parties _see themselves_ in this way. This is the tradition of the Kautsky-Lenin story in WHAT IS TO BE DONE? in which socialist consciousness among the "masses" must come "from above" or "from the outside" from the intellectuals of the Party. I haven't seen very many "Leninist" parties that hope to learn from the "masses" (or to treat them as peers) or emphasize the importance of democratic self-organization by the "masses." (Some Trotskyist parties go with the latter.) ^ CB: My impression is that the Bolivarians see themselves as from and with the masses, especially the poor, not above them. The idea is of leaders who are integrated with the masses, yet still lead. Democratic centralism is a contradiction or a method for dealing with a contradiction: The need for unity and leadership for successful struggle against an antagonistic opponent, the capitalists, yet the need for empowerment of the masses as individuals as a primary goal of the whole revolutionary movement. This contradiction arises in any democratic effort, as perhaps you allude to in saying that the "democratic centralist" ideal has a long history. I have "seen" many Leninist parties putting a lot of emphasis and effort into democratic self-organization of the masses. In Russia, this was in the form of the soviets, and in emphasis on recruitment from the working classes into the Party. I agree that there have been failures, but I disagree that there have not been great successes in this regard. CB:If the Party is with the masses then it participates in the movement from "below". However, the point on consciousness is that the events of April 13 most likely did not happen without preparation of the consciousness of the masses by its political leaders in the Bolivarian movement. This is precisely conscious revolt and not spontaneous in the senses that Lenin discusses the issue in _What is to be done ?_ We already have prior information about this issue of raising mass consciousness in Venezuela from the repeated landslide election victories of the Bolivarian movement. The brilliant actions of the masses in reversing the coup were the result of this ongoing process of consciousness raising, no doubt, probably very unspontaneous. The whole situation bespeaks a very democratic centralist relationship between massses and leaders. I would like to hear more information about this. ^^^ CB: I would too. Maybe Michael Pugliese can google "Bolivarian Circles" for us. ^ gotta go... JD 1.Binary scheme of democracy and centralism a correct reading of Lenin’s work makes clear that Lenin never made a binary scheme
Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Why does a large firm like Ford have many different factories which exchange commodities (e.g. car parts) with each other but without using the market? Interestingly enough, Toyota, always rated one of the most 'efficient' and 'profitable' of the Japanese automakers is the least vertically hierchical. It passes risks and distress in the market onto its numerous suppliers and acts as a center for design, marketing and final assembly (with intense quality control processes). It's exact opposite would have to be GM. Besides selling off parts divisions, Ghosn at Nissan is trying to Toyotatize the firm. Actually, the two goals go together. He sells off a parts division and it might get contracts with Nissan, but Nissan and its keiretsu bank are no longer responsible for extending credit and that spun off company will now be placed in direct competition with other possible suppliers. I know that selling off the parts divisions and other holdings have been profitable for Nissan, but I'm not sure about the rest. For example, sharing platforms with Renault might mean more business for Nissan , if Nissan makes the platforms. But it might mean Nissan has to shed even more workers if it neither makes the shared platforms but is expected to pay US levels of dividends to shareholders (the number one being Renault). Charles Jannuzi
Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Binary scheme of democracy and centralism by bantam 17 April 2002 14:43 Hi again Charles, Weber really is a cracking good read on bureaucracy, and the examples he plucks from his time and place are mostly taken from private enterprise in wholesale manufacture - a heroic whinge about reality getting distorted and edited into quantifiable and surveilled bits and pieces, about particulars having to be lumped into dehumanised categories, about the ascendance of timidity and the worship of order, and about the soulless machine we are making of ourselves. Taylorism strikes me as the ideal-type target of this brilliant assault. 'Bureaucracy' has been framed as a synonym for the state these days, sure, but that's discursively retrievable, I reckon, if we go at it in the sense Weber was on about. And I don't think we can do that with a substitutionist, top-down, central-planning sorta programme. Do the analysis of current dynamics and dream the dream, and do it publicly and charmingly articulately - that's my idea of doing politics in the modern 'north'. ^^ CB: Thanks , Rob. What is your take on the usual usage that a big bureaucracy is a bad thing , implying that making it smaller would improve it ? Seems to me the problem you summarize is the dictatorial or undemocratic structure of socalled bureaucracies. This implies that it is the small number of autocrats, not the large number of people who make up the bureaucracy that would be the problem. I understand your wish to preserve Weber's insights. My concern is that right now, the term bureaucracy is always used to argue for privatization. Weber's examples of private companies is specifically not the widespread meaning in this context, otherwise there would be no argument that privatisation gets rid of the problems of bureaucracy. If the Taylor system is a bureaucracy, is a factory system a bureaucracy ? I think we should use the term dictatorship and bourgeois dictatorship to refer to corporate structures , including factory systems. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/18/education/18EDIS.html April 18, 2002 Private Groups Get 42 Schools in Philadelphia By JACQUES STEINBERG Timothy M. Shaffer for The New York Times Student protesters blocked the Philadelphia school system's administration building yesterday, delaying the meeting of a state commission that was prepared to vote on privatizing some of the schools. For-Profit School Venture Has Yet to Turn a Profit (April 8, 2002) Buying in to the Company School (February 17, 2002) Topics Alerts Edison Schools Incorporated Education and Schools Reading and Writing Skills Reform and Reorganization Create Your Own | Manage Alerts Take a Tour Sign Up for Newsletters Join a Discussion on Ideas on Contemporary Education HILADELPHIA, April 17 In what is believed to be the largest experiment in privatization mounted by an American school district, a state panel charged with improving the Philadelphia public school system voted tonight to transfer control of 42 failing city schools to seven outside managers, including Edison Schools Inc. and two universities. The three members of the School Reform Commission appointed by Gov. Mark Schweiker voted for the plan, while the two members appointed by Mayor John F. Street voted against it. The vote capped a fiery three-hour meeting in which the two sides had split over whether Edison, the nation's largest for-profit operator of public schools, had the capacity and know-how to improve the 20 schools that it was assigned. I want this reform to succeed, Michael Masch, a vice president at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the mayor's two appointees to the panel, said at one point in the debate. I am gravely concerned that the magnitude of the change being proposed is imprudent. Moments later, James P. Gallagher, the president of Philadelphia University and one of the governor's three appointees, said, We should push the envelope and be as aggressive as possible. The panel's vote today represents a milestone in the decade-long growth of the movement to turn troubled public schools over to private operators. There is no better index of the impact of this effort than Edison's own expansion: over the last six years, it has gone from operating a handful of public schools to more than 130 in 22 states, with a combined student population that is larger than all but a few dozen urban districts. All told, the Philadelphia panel voted to assign an outside manager to one of every six schools in the city. In addition to Edison, the other organizations involved include two colleges that are in Philadelphia: Temple University, which was assigned five schools, and the University of Pennsylvania, which received three schools. The panel also tapped four other companies with various degrees of school
Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Binary scheme of democracy and centralism by Bill Lear 17 April 2002 15:49 UTC -clip- As I said, I think the distinction between the terms hierarchy and totalitarian is important. You can have a democratic hierarchy with those in higher positions, for example, being contact points for information flows, and serving for only a very limited time after which they rotate back below others. This is not so possible in corporate America, aside from perhaps instances that are simply at the level of statistical error. Orders come from above, as they do in totalitarian states. As with any system, there is always a certain amount of principle/agent problem to be dealt with. In a totalitarian society, sometimes people are asked their opinion, sometimes they get to help run things, but they never rule. Same thing in a corporate hierarchy. One other thing worth mentioning is that corporations are not merely separate entities interacting through a market. They are quite typically diverse, with interlocking directorates. Furthermore, they dominate state policy, which has resulted in a profound level of violence (a contradiction if ever there was one). Ditto for totalitarian states. CB: In using your model, I would say that even though there is a partially democratic hierarchy in the U.S. governments, the totalitarian corporate system rules the U.S. governments substantially, such that the U.S. system should be termed totalitarian too. If we use the totalitarian model, we should include the U.S. as totalitarian, otherwise there is too much of an implication of democracy in the U.S.system. Alternatively it might be termed a bourgeois dictatorship.
Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
G'day Charles, CB: Thanks , Rob. What is your take on the usual usage that a big bureaucracy is a bad thing , implying that making it smaller would improve it ? Seems to me the problem you summarize is the dictatorial or undemocratic structure of socalled bureaucracies. This implies that it is the small number of autocrats, not the large number of people who make up the bureaucracy that would be the problem. I understand your wish to preserve Weber's insights. My concern is that right now, the term bureaucracy is always used to argue for privatization. Weber's examples of private companies is specifically not the widespread meaning in this context, otherwise there would be no argument that privatisation gets rid of the problems of bureaucracy. If the Taylor system is a bureaucracy, is a factory system a bureaucracy ? Yep. Bureaucracy, in the Weberian sense, is the rule of the human world by what he calls western rationality (you and I might see this 'western rationality' as a function of capitalism, but I suspect Weber'd have it the other way 'round - a potentially big disagreement, but not on what we're talking about here). Bureaucracy is the top-down imposition of the ensuing principles - that way, we're all enmeshed in what Weber called 'the iron cage of bureaucratic rationality'. Anything that bubbles from the bottom up is anathema to it - potentially fatal to it. A distaste for bureaucracy is a distaste for high capitalism to my mind, but a tendency more to Shliapnikov's or Trotsky's ideas of an economy run by decentralised workers' councils, in concert (for the latter) with limited markets, than to a centralised command economy. Modern computing power might solve a lot of the problems that defeated the SU planning nomenklatura, but it wouldn't solve the one we're on about. I think we should use the term dictatorship and bourgeois dictatorship to refer to corporate structures , including factory systems. I've no problem with that. But I reckon we have explicitly to add a bit of Marx to our Weber here - to highlight that it's not bureaucratic rationality that's producing the system (although it helps reproduce it), but the system that's producing the bureaucratic rationality. Cheers, Rob.
Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
On Thursday, April 18, 2002 at 11:14:50 (-0400) Charles Brown writes: ... CB: In using your model, I would say that even though there is a partially democratic hierarchy in the U.S. governments, the totalitarian corporate system rules the U.S. governments substantially, such that the U.S. system should be termed totalitarian too. If we use the totalitarian model, we should include the U.S. as totalitarian, otherwise there is too much of an implication of democracy in the U.S.system. Alternatively it might be termed a bourgeois dictatorship. The only problem I have with this is that we have a great deal of substantive freedoms, often won at great cost to those who have fought for them. At a certain point, once you add enough freedoms, I think it would be difficult for the system to be called totalitarian. I'm not sure where that point lies, though. Jim seems to think that the term has too much baggage associated with it, which is fine. But if you consider the dictionary definition, it seems to me that, as Michael Perelman pointed out, and as anyone who has set foot within corporate America knows, the corporate system itself approaches the definition much more closely than does the political system. As Reich points out, workers lose most of the political and civil rights they enjoy as citizens of the state upon entry to corporate America. This seems to me to be evidence of a clear line between two very different realms. However, I can see an argument that what we have is indeed (the dictionary form of) totalitarianism, albeit one that is imperfect because the masters are constrained by those annoying things called the Constitution, public opinion and direct action, and differences among investors --- which often open up significant avenues of popular input. Every totalitarian system has these flaws; even the Soviet Union had limits to what it could or was willing to do to its population, so again, I'm not sure where we draw the line. Perhaps plutocratic dictatorship, or plutocracy is better. I would still like a neat term, though, that would allow us to describe a system of relationships such as slave/master, worker/owner, husband/wife (when women know their place). Though it seems a bit odd to describe the slave/master relationship as a dictatorship or totalitarian, I think the plain term fits. Sabri mentioned object-oriented programming, so here's an OO diagram describing another possible term: Slavery | +---+--+--+ | | | | Chattel Wage Marital ? Well, anyway, at least we know it when we see it. Bill
RE: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Perhaps plutocratic dictatorship, or plutocracy is better. when I see the word plutocracy, I am reminded of two things: (1) Years ago, I read an article in the PROCEEDINGS of the U.S. Navy Institute that labeled the U.S. system using this word. Was this a move in the direction of increasing the legitimacy of the idea of replacing the plutocracy with military rule? (2)I think of Disney Dogs. Looking at the current occupant of the Oval Office, I wonder if instead of Plutocracy, we have Goofyocracy. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/‾jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Well, Ian wants to close the business schools and I want to shut down economics departments. What do you all think of Anthropology? Gene Ian Murray wrote: - Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PEN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 8:30 PM Subject: [PEN-L:25023] Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism Michael writes: You are absolutely correct. Devine, James wrote: My impression is that Williamson studies non-market institutions in order to show that corporate hierarchies are a good thing. I don't know whether he studies market or non-market institutions but other than that what Jim said was more or less what he told me or what I recall from the things he told me: hierarchical and/or centralized forms of governance for the institutions of capitalism are/can be better than other organizational forms. Moreover, he had no urge to make use of the word democracy as he was making his claims. As I heard many times in the business world: We are a business, we are not a democracy! Here is another one: We are not in the business of doing good. We do business and good comes out of it! More or less, that is, as far as I recall. Sabri Would that Williamson and his fellow apologists do some actual economic anthropology and sign up for a stint as a mail room clerk or executive assistant, a cosmetics salesperson or an air traffic controller or load trucks or be a school bus driver to see how accurately their categories, narratives and explanations map the actual lobotomizing practices of today's big firms. Business administration depts. are the breeding grounds for authoritarian, autocratic personalities and they ought to be dismantled and rolled into those remaining departments that could teach them something about democracy and manners Ian
RE: Re: Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Shut them down, too. -- JD -Original Message- From: Eugene Coyle To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 4/17/02 7:06 PM Subject: [PEN-L:25087] Re: Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism Well, Ian wants to close the business schools and I want to shut down economics departments. What do you all think of Anthropology? Gene
Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Shut them down, too. -- JD Well, Ian wants to close the business schools and I want to shut down economics departments. What do you all think of Anthropology? Gene How about shutting the entire academe down. The current condition of academe is a complete mess. It is like an object oriented program that screwed up so badly that there is no point of deriving new classes from the already existing parent classes. Maybe we can make a fresh start for the better. Sabri
Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Sabri must have looked at my office. On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 08:43:10PM -0700, Sabri Oncu wrote: Shut them down, too. -- JD Well, Ian wants to close the business schools and I want to shut down economics departments. What do you all think of Anthropology? Gene How about shutting the entire academe down. The current condition of academe is a complete mess. It is like an object oriented program that screwed up so badly that there is no point of deriving new classes from the already existing parent classes. Maybe we can make a fresh start for the better. Sabri -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Binary scheme of democracy and centralism by miychi 15 April 2002 21:34 UTC 1.Binary scheme of democracy and centralism Charles: As Lenin was a dialectician, we can be sure that these opposites are to be treated in both their unity and opposition, as you do below. Basically it is a way of relating the masses and their leaders for struggle and for long term operation of the country. ^^^ a correct reading of Lenin $B!G (Js work makes clear that Lenin never made a binary scheme of democracy and centralism. Lenin speaks about centralization of leadership by the party, decentralization of responsibility to the local sections, and obligation of regular reporting and publicizing within the party as condition to realize them, and centralization of secret function and specification other functions of movement. as for democracy-inner-party democracy, he regards it as a condition to realize centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility to local sections, in other words, as a historical concrete or a variable form. ^^^ CB: Definitely, democratic centralism is to be treated in a historically concrete manner. Thus, the unity of democracy and centralism in the Venezuelan Bolivarian movement is unique. What do you think of the operation of the principle of democratic centralism in Venezuela as we have learned of the events there ? ^
Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Binary scheme of democracy and centralism by Sabri Oncu 16 April 2002 04:49 UTC They were the ones who possessed the centralized power. They are not gone because we, who worked under them, way below the corporate hierarchy, ^^^ CB: Is this corporate hierarchy a bureaucracy too ? ^ had no means to say: Fuck you! When you sign up for a financial corporation, or any corporation for that matter, you accept the hierarchy that comes with it and know that you need to give them a 15 day notice before you leave but they can get rid of you any time of their choosing.
Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
CB: Is this corporate hierarchy a bureaucracy too ? Sure Charles. This one is bureaucracy at its worst. Do you have any doubts? If you do, I strongly recommend that you seek employment with, say, Goldman Sachs Asset Management, Barclays Global Investors, Merrill Lynch Investment Management, Putnam Investment Management, PIMCO and the like. Just try it, if you get the job, you will see what I mean. Sabri P.S: We are talking about organizational forms, Charles. This has nothing to do with the objectives of the organizations, however well/bad meaning they may be. There is an interesting book by Oliver Williamson that I bought a while ago but have not read yet. It is entitled something like Institutions of Capitalism or some such name. He is the founder of this transaction costs economics and will most likely receive a Noble Prize in the next few years. I met him a few times in some social gatherings as a matter of coincidence and had a chance to chat with him on the topic, although I must confess what he explained was way above my head. Read it, and if I understood anything from Oliver, you will see that Gunder Frank is right in that, Oliver doesn't know how Marxist he is.
RE: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Sabri writes:There is an interesting book by Oliver Williamson that I bought a while ago but have not read yet. It is entitled something like Institutions of Capitalism or some such name. He is the founder of this transaction costs economics and will most likely receive a Noble [sic!] Prize in the next few years. I met him a few times in some social gatherings as a matter of coincidence and had a chance to chat with him on the topic, although I must confess what he explained was way above my head. Read it, and if I understood anything from Oliver, you will see that Gunder Frank is right in that, Oliver doesn't know how Marxist he is. My impression is that Williamson studies non-market institutions in order to show that corporate hierarchies are a good thing. One of his arguments is that other forms of organization lack the single-mindedness of a corporation (referring to the profit-seeking lust that they have). When I read his stuff years ago -- in preparing an article that Michael Reich and I got published in the REVIEW OF RADICAL POLTIICAL ECONOMICS -- I concluded that there was a basic conflict between capitalists and workers at the center of his theory. Capitalists were striving to attain the collective good for all that worked for the corporation, while disgruntled workers were mere free riders, undermining the collective good. But maybe I mushed his views up with some of the other orthodox authors. JD
Re: RE: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
You are absolutely correct. Devine, James wrote: My impression is that Williamson studies non-market institutions in order to show that corporate hierarchies are a good thing. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Michael writes: You are absolutely correct. Devine, James wrote: My impression is that Williamson studies non-market institutions in order to show that corporate hierarchies are a good thing. I don't know whether he studies market or non-market institutions but other than that what Jim said was more or less what he told me or what I recall from the things he told me: hierarchical and/or centralized forms of governance for the institutions of capitalism are/can be better than other organizational forms. Moreover, he had no urge to make use of the word democracy as he was making his claims. As I heard many times in the business world: We are a business, we are not a democracy! Here is another one: We are not in the business of doing good. We do business and good comes out of it! More or less, that is, as far as I recall. Sabri
Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
- Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PEN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 8:30 PM Subject: [PEN-L:25023] Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism Michael writes: You are absolutely correct. Devine, James wrote: My impression is that Williamson studies non-market institutions in order to show that corporate hierarchies are a good thing. I don't know whether he studies market or non-market institutions but other than that what Jim said was more or less what he told me or what I recall from the things he told me: hierarchical and/or centralized forms of governance for the institutions of capitalism are/can be better than other organizational forms. Moreover, he had no urge to make use of the word democracy as he was making his claims. As I heard many times in the business world: We are a business, we are not a democracy! Here is another one: We are not in the business of doing good. We do business and good comes out of it! More or less, that is, as far as I recall. Sabri Would that Williamson and his fellow apologists do some actual economic anthropology and sign up for a stint as a mail room clerk or executive assistant, a cosmetics salesperson or an air traffic controller or load trucks or be a school bus driver to see how accurately their categories, narratives and explanations map the actual lobotomizing practices of today's big firms. Business administration depts. are the breeding grounds for authoritarian, autocratic personalities and they ought to be dismantled and rolled into those remaining departments that could teach them something about democracy and manners Ian
Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Jim writes on Williamson: I concluded that there was basic conflict between capitalists and workers at the center of his theory. Capitalists were striving to attain the collective good for all that worked for the corporation, while disgruntled workers were mere free riders, undermining the collective good. Interesting. This means, I was a free rider then, but luckily, as the CEO of my current one man company, I am a happy capitalist striving for the collective good of all. I am proud or what? I guess there is a serious theoretical problem here but hey! However, what is more interesting is his recognition of the basic conflict between capitalists and workers. I guess this is basically what led me to conclude that he doesn't know how Marxist he is, based on my intuition and what I heard from him. Can Jim or anyone else who knows about transaction costs economics give a summary of what it is? Best Sabri
Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Transactions cost economics -- this will be brief after 6 hours of classes, 2 hours at the gym -- starts with Ronald Coase, who explains that firms arise to minimize the cost of negotiating via markets, say by writing a contract with specific requirements. Robertson refered to firms as islands of planning. But planning gets unwieldy if the organization gets too big, so socialism is a no-no. Williamson was at Carnegie, where he picked up a great deal from Herbert Simon about dealing with uncertainty, but then he rejected Simon later. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
There's a bit of the TC approach in John Commons as well.. Ian - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 10:07 PM Subject: [PEN-L:25027] Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism Transactions cost economics -- this will be brief after 6 hours of classes, 2 hours at the gym -- starts with Ronald Coase, who explains that firms arise to minimize the cost of negotiating via markets, say by writing a contract with specific requirements. Robertson refered to firms as islands of planning. But planning gets unwieldy if the organization gets too big, so socialism is a no-no. Williamson was at Carnegie, where he picked up a great deal from Herbert Simon about dealing with uncertainty, but then he rejected Simon later. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
On 2002.04.17 02:30 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: G'day Charles, Sorry, Rob, Leninist democratic centralism is alive and well in Venezuela , where all power resides with the masses and their elected representatives in the CENTER ! Viva Bolivarian Bolshevism ! Either we're talking about different 'democratic centralisms' or we're watching different Venezuelas. Or both. So much for bloody , middle class, fake democracy. Er, at least I tried to attach an argument to my speculative rant ... Cheers, Rob. 1.Binary scheme of democracy and centralism a correct reading of Lenin’s work makes clear that Lenin never made a binary scheme of democracy and centralism. Lenin speaks about centralization of leadership by the party, decentralization of responsibility to the local sections, and obligation of regular reporting and publicizing within the party as condition to realize them, and centralization of secret function and specification other functions of movement. as for democracy-inner-party democracy, he regards it as a condition to realize centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility to local sections, in other words, as a historical concrete or a variable form. When we are going to speak something about centralism, it is necessary to make clear what is to be centralized. Without making this point clear, a “word” of centralization of power can be made to work by itself, and directly applied to the bureaucratic organization and system of order and command. That brings about an unnecessary binary opposing democracy against centralism and individual against organization and the scheme comes to sway its power. What is to be centralized is leadership pf the Party. The greatest possible centralization is necessary for ideological and practical leadership of all the sort of movements of proletariat. At the same time the greatest possible decentralization is necessary for the responsibility to the local sections in order to keep the leadership of the party and decentralization of responsibility to the local sections may be compared to both sides of a medal. From the viewpoint of Stalinism, the content of centralization of power is not considered as a pair of centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility, but only centralization of leadership has been put forward. Centralism is considered only as “ command from above” , and democracy becomes a mere means in pursuit of this. Thus the leadership becomes something irrelevant to the Party, i.e. bureaucratic, administrative direction (commands). And the party organization itself can be made up from the binary scheme of democracy and centralism. we must revive a pair of centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility as a content of power centralization. On the one hand there should be “ the smallest number of the most homogenous group of professional revolutionaries( Letters to a comrade on our organization tasks -V.I.Lenin. Collected works vol6 248p), and they should centralized many elements of the leadership of the revolutionary movements as far as possible. On the other side” the greatest number of the most diverse and heterogeneous groups of the most varied sections of the proletariat (and other classes of the people)(op. ct. 248p) should take part in the movements and bear the responsibilities to the Party. In order to accomplish this, party cells, groups and circles etc, should give the most precise and fullest information of the content of their works to the leadership (the system of the regular report). while the leadership should publicize the real state of movements and the real content of the Party except the secret function (the inner-party publicizing principle, the obligation of the information of the leading organs to the membership). Secondly, under this leadership should be centralized secret functions and other functions of the movements should be specialized as far as possible. This is an outline, which Lenin considered as the most essential principle of the Party organization and a organizational ideology of the whole rule of the Party. Lenin speaks, “ the ideology of the centrism shows in principle how to solve many organizational problems in part as well as in detail”(One Step Forward, two Step back- V.I.Lenin collected Works vol. 7) and “ an ideology of the centralism as a single and principle ideology should determine the whole rules of the party#(po. cit,) Concerning the necessity to carry through centralism as a principle pf the party organization, Lenin argued from many points of view in What to be done or Letter to a comrade on our organizational tasks, and worked out an actual plan of organization. Centralism is the principle of the party organization which determine the party organization and works at any time and place as long as it should
Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Miyachi wrote: From the viewpoint of Stalinism, the content of centralization of power is not considered as a pair of centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility, but only centralization of leadership has been put forward. Dear Miyachi, I have served at a few of the most Stalinist institutions in the world: US financial corporations. They talked about centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility incessantly. This is the way the US financial corporations are organized and I doubt that non-financial corporations are significantly different. Responsibility without authority is one of the most painful experiences I have ever had, where, in this context, with authority I mean ability to make decisions. What is the point of decentralized responsibility if those who are responsible have no ability to make decisions? Best, Sabri
Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
- Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PEN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 3:11 PM Subject: [PEN-L:24950] Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism Miyachi wrote: From the viewpoint of Stalinism, the content of centralization of power is not considered as a pair of centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility, but only centralization of leadership has been put forward. Dear Miyachi, I have served at a few of the most Stalinist institutions in the world: US financial corporations. They talked about centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility incessantly. This is the way the US financial corporations are organized and I doubt that non-financial corporations are significantly different. Responsibility without authority is one of the most painful experiences I have ever had, where, in this context, with authority I mean ability to make decisions. What is the point of decentralized responsibility if those who are responsible have no ability to make decisions? Best, Sabri = To protect the leadership. It's called the musical chairs theory of unaccountability. Ian
Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
To protect the leadership. It's called the musical chairs theory of unaccountability. Ian Hey Ian, In the world of finance, what you said is called saving ass or ass saving, depending on which one you like more. If you are someone with some authority and have those below you with lots of responsibility, whenever there is a screw up, you can try to point fingers at them to save your own ass. This is why it is called ass saving in those circles. It doesn't work forever though. At some point, the unit you are in charge screws up so badly that a security guard escorts you to the door, as I have witnessed many, many times. Here is a fictitious story which covers not just ass saving but also one reason why most financial corporations loved this thing called out-sourcing: Suppose, for whatever reason, the executives of a firm that manages about $360 billion decide to install an enterprise wide risk management system. Actually we know: they want to monitor their portfolio managers, so that they can point fingers at them when there is a screw up. Now, consider a Managing Director of Information Technology at this firm. As an Information Technology Managing Director, suppose that this person has no idea about modern portfolio theory, so-called Litterman decomposition, Value at Risk and cannot even tell the difference between say duration and maturity of a fixed income asset, which means she knows nothing about risk management. Further, she knows nothing about stochastic processes, term structure models, option pricing, CAPM and all that garbage either, which makes her a complete idiot in the eyes of those who know about that stuff, like myself, that is. So, she hires first, say, Reufers, a very respectable firm, of course, but no less idiots than her as far as risk management goes, as consultants to manage the installation project and naturally they screw up, say, after a year. By firing them, she saves her ass but since she is still in trouble, she this time hires, say, IBN, another respectable firm, of course, but no less idiots than her as far as risk management goes, as consultants to manage the installation project and naturally they screw up, say, after a year. By firing them, she saves her ass once again but since she is still in trouble, she this time hires, say, Orakle. Do you think she can survive if Orakle screws up too? And this fictitious story ends with me saying that I had seen her escorted out by a security guard, after Orakle screwed up. For your information, in this fictitious story, the first two of the firms mentioned were there, that is, Reufers and IBN. By the way, IBN consultants cost this particular money management firm from $2500 to $5000 daily, depending on their seniority, or, should we say, stupidity. Best, Sabri
Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
- Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey Ian, In the world of finance, what you said is called saving ass or ass saving, depending on which one you like more. If you are someone with some authority and have those below you with lots of responsibility, whenever there is a screw up, you can try to point fingers at them to save your own ass. This is why it is called ass saving in those circles. It doesn't work forever though. At some point, the unit you are in charge screws up so badly that a security guard escorts you to the door, as I have witnessed many, many times. Here is a fictitious story which covers not just ass saving but also one reason why most financial corporations loved this thing called out-sourcing: Suppose, for whatever reason, the executives of a firm that manages about $360 billion decide to install an enterprise wide risk management system. Actually we know: they want to monitor their portfolio managers, so that they can point fingers at them when there is a screw up. Now, consider a Managing Director of Information Technology at this firm. As an Information Technology Managing Director, suppose that this person has no idea about modern portfolio theory, so-called Litterman decomposition, Value at Risk and cannot even tell the difference between say duration and maturity of a fixed income asset, which means she knows nothing about risk management. Further, she knows nothing about stochastic processes, term structure models, option pricing, CAPM and all that garbage either, which makes her a complete idiot in the eyes of those who know about that stuff, like myself, that is. So, she hires first, say, Reufers, a very respectable firm, of course, but no less idiots than her as far as risk management goes, as consultants to manage the installation project and naturally they screw up, say, after a year. By firing them, she saves her ass but since she is still in trouble, she this time hires, say, IBN, another respectable firm, of course, but no less idiots than her as far as risk management goes, as consultants to manage the installation project and naturally they screw up, say, after a year. By firing them, she saves her ass once again but since she is still in trouble, she this time hires, say, Orakle. Do you think she can survive if Orakle screws up too? And this fictitious story ends with me saying that I had seen her escorted out by a security guard, after Orakle screwed up. For your information, in this fictitious story, the first two of the firms mentioned were there, that is, Reufers and IBN. By the way, IBN consultants cost this particular money management firm from $2500 to $5000 daily, depending on their seniority, or, should we say, stupidity. Best, Sabri === And just who was the fool who hired the MDIT? Who was the fool who assigned her the task of search and implementation ? Why are they not gone? Ian
Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
And just who was the fool who hired the MDIT? Who was the fool who assigned her the task of search and implementation? Why are they not gone? Ian They were the ones who possessed the centralized power. They are not gone because we, who worked under them, way below the corporate hierarchy, had no means to say: Fuck you! When you sign up for a financial corporation, or any corporation for that matter, you accept the hierarchy that comes with it and know that you need to give them a 15 day notice before you leave but they can get rid of you any time of their choosing. By the way, it is not that I had not tried to stop this foolishness. I tried to convince some friends that if we stick together and rise up collectively, we could stop all that shit but they thought I was crazy. They told me that this is not the way businesses work in the US. If you rise up collectively, they get rid off you immediately, they said. Those fools never understood that although the ones with the centralized power could get rid of us one by one as individuals, they cannot get rid off all of us at once, for otherwise they would have no subjects to exercise their power on, or to put it differently in this context, to exploit for profits. How could I have convinced those fools to say no to power. After all, this the US, the land of opportunities, freedom, democracy, etc. Is it not? I guess I gave enough reasons for why I hate centralized power this much. Sabri
.On Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
1.Binary scheme of democracy and centralism a correct reading of Lenin’s work makes clear that Lenin never made a binary scheme of democracy and centralism. Lenin speaks about centralization of leadership by the party, decentralization of responsibility to the local sections, and obligation of regular reporting and publicizing within the party as condition to realize them, and centralization of secret function and specification other functions of movement. as for democracy-inner-party democracy, he regards it as a condition to realize centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility to local sections, in other words, as a historical concrete or a variable form. When we are going to speak something about centralism, it is necessary to make clear what is to be centralized. Without making this point clear, a “word” of centralization of power can be made to work by itself, and directly applied to the bureaucratic organization and system of order and command. That brings about an unnecessary binary opposing democracy against centralism and individual against organization and the scheme comes to sway its power. What is to be centralized is leadership pf the Party. The greatest possible centralization is necessary for ideological and practical leadership of all the sort of movements of proletariat. At the same time the greatest possible decentralization is necessary for the responsibility to the local sections in order to keep the leadership of the party and decentralization of responsibility to the local sections may be compared to both sides of a medal. From the viewpoint of Stalinism, the content of centralization of power is not considered as a pair of centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility, but only centralization of leadership has been put forward. Centralism is considered only as “ command from above” , and democracy becomes a mere means in pursuit of this. Thus the leadership becomes something irrelevant to the Party, i.e. bureaucratic, administrative direction (commands). And the party organization itself can be made up from the binary scheme of democracy and centralism. we must revive a pair of centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility as a content of power centralization. On the one hand there should be “ the smallest number of the most homogenous group of professional revolutionaries( Letters to a comrade on our organization tasks -V.I.Lenin. Collected works vol6 248p), and they should centralized many elements of the leadership of the revolutionary movements as far as possible. On the other side” the greatest number of the most diverse and heterogeneous groups of the most varied sections of the proletariat (and other classes of the people)(op. ct. 248p) should take part in the movements and bear the responsibilities to the Party. In order to accomplish this, party cells, groups and circles etc, should give the most precise and fullest information of the content of their works to the leadership (the system of the regular report). while the leadership should publicize the real state of movements and the real content of the Party except the secret function (the inner-party publicizing principle, the obligation of the information of the leading organs to the membership). Secondly, under this leadership should be centralized secret functions and other functions of the movements should be specialized as far as possible. This is an outline, which Lenin considered as the most essential principle of the Party organization and a organizational ideology of the whole rule of the Party. Lenin speaks, “ the ideology of the centrism shows in principle how to solve many organizational problems in part as well as in detail”(One Step Forward, two Step back- V.I.Lenin collected Works vol. 7) and “ an ideology of the centralism as a single and principle ideology should determine the whole rules of the party#(po. cit,) Concerning the necessity to carry through centralism as a principle pf the party organization, Lenin argued from many points of view in What to be done or Letter to a comrade on our organizational tasks, and worked out an actual plan of organization. Centralism is the principle of the party organization which determine the party organization and works at any time and place as long as it should be a Party of Communists. It should not be understood in the limit of the national specialty of Russia or the historical period of Lenin. only the forms or the way in which centralism is accomplished can be changed to the various historical conditions. 2. relation of inner-party democracy to centralism while centralism is the principle of the party organization, inner-party democracy is, for Lenin. a form and means, in which centralism is realized and which is determined by the historical and definite conditions. Concerning the introduction of democracy
